Re: [whatwg/url] Provide a succinct grammar for valid URL strings (#479)

IMO, it's premature to talk about building more formal, "more final" specifications based on this standard.

Currently, there is only 1 major browser that passes the test suite (Safari), and that's a very, very recent development. Chrome has [by far](https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share) the largest market share, but only passes ~70% of the tests. That number doesn't really capture the gravity of the situation, though; really, Chrome doesn't behave anything like this standard suggests it should.

To be clear: this project, to unify and document how browsers actually parse and manipulate URLs, is still very much ongoing. The IETF does not help its credibility by rushing to copy this standard and slap its own name on it.

Also, after reading the [2012 email thread](https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/I6JXAITYERAzka5vdJsdh_zivNs/), it seems to me that the IETF is a toxic organisation. The way nobody seems willing to do anything (except bicker and fight, of course), while demanding fees for even participating in the discussion, is laughably outdated for an internet organisation. The WHATWG process is far more open, more welcoming, and overall much better-natured than what I see at the IETF. For that reason, while I'm happy to participate in the WHATWG process, I won't be participating in any future IETF effort.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-865791816